Could cost anywhere from $3 to $7 per gallon.

The term "biofuels" actually encompasses a host of largely unrelated technologies. So far, it has largely meant ethanol, generated by fermenting the sugars found in crops, while research is attempting to make it from the cellulose that gives all plants their structure. But you can also convert biological materials to things like biodiesel or other replacements for the fuels we already use.

Even in that area, however, there are several different approaches. One is to engineer organisms to make molecules that we can drop directly into our fuel tanks. Another is to get those organisms to produce an excess of the lipids they normally require and then subject them to a mild bit of processing in order to convert the lipids to fuel. This week, researchers announced progress with a third approach: subjecting the microbes to a chemical process that converts them to a complex mixture that's a bit like crude oil.

The authors of the new paper point out the trade-offs between approaches in their introductions. It's possible to select algae that are naturally rich in lipids and then grow them under conditions that induce them to produce even more. But the lipid-rich strains don't grow as fast as many others, and the conditions that get the most fuel out of them slow down growth even more. If you just take a typical species of algae and grow them in optimum conditions, you get a lot more raw material much more quickly.

Unfortunately, very little of that raw material is in a form that can easily be converted to fuel. But it is possible to convert some of it to a mixture of hydrocarbons of various sizes that's a bit like light crude oil—termed biocrude. That biocrude can then be mixed in with normal oil and processed for use as fuel.

The challenge is doing that conversion efficiently. It takes heat, pressure, and a constant flow of hydrogen, so you need to use that energy efficiently. And you also need to be able to run the conversion at scale. That was the idea behind a demonstration project at the Pacific Northwest National Lab. The lab created a continuous-flow reactor that took algae and hydrogen at one end and released biocrude (as well as some other useful products) at the other.

The process started with a near-solid slurry of single-celled algae that grow rapidly in tanks. This raw material was sent through a number of tanks where it was pressurized and warmed using waste heat from the main reaction tank. Solids (mostly calcium phosphate) and sulfur were removed before the material entered the reaction chamber, where it met the hydrogen and a catalyst (ruthenium). The ensuing reactions used the hydrogen to remove oxygen from sugars, break down double bonds, and convert any nitrogen into ammonia.

The ammonia, along with some carbon dioxide, ended up in the gas phase and could be bled out of the system. Once the rest of the material leaves the reaction chamber and is chilled, it spontaneously separates into water and hydrocarbon phases. The water contains some carbon compounds like methanol and ethanol, which can then be extracted and used as fuel. It also contains much of the remaining phosphate and nitrogen, and the authors are optimistic that these can be isolated and used as fertilizer for the algae themselves.

But most of the material in the cells (53 percent by weight) ends up the biocrude. The authors show that this material is a mix of long-chain hydrocarbons (with anywhere from six to over 30 carbon atoms). Based on its properties, they estimate that over 80 percent of the mix could be blended into diesel stock.

They key thing about the process is that it is continuous-flow: you can keep stuffing algae in the front even as biocrude flows out the far end, which means that it can be operated continuously, keeping the heat in the system and raising the efficiency (although, in practice, the test setup was never run for more than a day). The authors indicate that all of the hardware of their system can also be scaled up to get things to work at an industrial level.

Will it make sense to do so? Right now, the uncertainties are pretty large. Some of the same researchers have done an economic analysis of the system, and they have found that it could make sense now, or it could only be worth it if fuel costs rose to $7 a gallon—the variability depended on the cost of raising the algae and the efficiency of the process at scale. Still, without basic work like this, it would be difficult to make any estimate of the cost at all.

I'm not really excited about extending the utility of internal combustion- IMO it will be on the way out by late century- but what is exciting about this kind of biotechnology is the other uses. Maybe algae could be engineered to mass-produce pharmaceuticals, or even feed-stock molecules for some future nanotechnology.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this point but aside from the energy needed to process and refine the fuel, this would be carbon neutral, right? All of the carbon in the fuel was taken in by the algae in the first place so when it is released it is in the same or lower amounts, though in different forms. Again, I am a bit ignorant on this subject so please correct me.

This is a good proof of concept for a continuously-running system. A small scale-up or demonstration plant would be the next step.

It's always risky to bring new technology like this to commercial production when the price point is near the current market price of fuel. A government subsidy, tax break or other incentive could promote this into industrial production the way it was done with ethanol.

The biotechnology that looked promising a couple of years ago was engineering algae to produce engine-ready biofuels in vesicles within the algae; as the article says, to produce molecules that you can drop directly in the gas tank. Maybe a system that uses both would be viable.

I'm curious, where does the hydrogen come from? On an industrial scale, would generating the hydrogen represent lost efficiency, or are there large scale sources of free (in terms of energy) hydrogen out there?

I'm sure they account for it, so this news is pretty exciting. If it really can be scaled up massively, it's nice to know that there are renewable solutions for liquid fuels production, even if it costs $7 a gallon. News like this makes it sound like we will always be able to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels, it just requires throwing enough money at the problem (see also uranium from seawater).

Please correct me if I am wrong on this point but aside from the energy needed to process and refine the fuel, this would be carbon neutral, right? All of the carbon in the fuel was taken in by the algae in the first place so when it is released it is in the same or lower amounts, though in different forms. Again, I am a bit ignorant on this subject so please correct me.

You need heat and pressure for the processing steps, and you may need some energy to grow the algae (although if that's light, it could just be sunlight). It's not clear from what's here how much of those things are required (and I didn't read the original article). If you can get the heat and pressure by using a carbon neutral source (e.g. using this fuel, or solar, or wind), then it may end up being carbon neutral.

Even if not, it's still much, much better than oil, where you also have to apply heat and pressure for processing, and you also have to expend energy to get it out of the ground, and on top of that the carbon you are emitting when you use it is coming out of previously unavailable stores.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this point but aside from the energy needed to process and refine the fuel, this would be carbon neutral, right? All of the carbon in the fuel was taken in by the algae in the first place so when it is released it is in the same or lower amounts, though in different forms. Again, I am a bit ignorant on this subject so please correct me.

I'd assume that it could be carbon-neutral, assuming the algae are not being fed any kind of petroleum-derived foodstuffs. Which makes it pretty exciting, since it effectively offers a carbon-neutral approach to vehicle fuels and to industrial process feedstocks.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this point but aside from the energy needed to process and refine the fuel, this would be carbon neutral, right? All of the carbon in the fuel was taken in by the algae in the first place so when it is released it is in the same or lower amounts, though in different forms. Again, I am a bit ignorant on this subject so please correct me.

You're right. The algae would have grown using CO2 from the environment (air/water) and we would be turning that into a long-chain hydrocarbon. However, since this process mentions that it's only currently suitable as a "mixer" along with regular crude, the end result of what you would put in your car would not be carbon neutral, BUT it would be a little better in that area than what we're currently using.

I wonder how much energy/heat it takes to do this, and it seems that you could achieve both the heat and the pressure using a solar collection system -- so this is possibly a way to "store" solar energy that everyone is always saying we need to figure out.

One of the major problems with the dependence on fossil fuels is how few alternatives are viable with modern engine configurations; programs like this produce fuels that are backward-compatible with existing hardware.

Even if this system dosen't produce 100% engine viable fuel, consuming less of what's out there is a big step in conserving both natural stores and the current economical state (which, while not ideal, would be much less ideal if all of a sudden worldwide vehicular fleets were out of fuel.)

I'm not really excited about extending the utility of internal combustion- IMO it will be on the way out by late century- but what is exciting about this kind of biotechnology is the other uses. Maybe algae could be engineered to mass-produce pharmaceuticals, or even feed-stock molecules for some future nanotechnology.

You ought to be! Unlike electric solutions, which for example would require a colossal public investment in the US's aging electric power distribution system, as well as a pretty huge private outlay for charging stations, we've already got a large network that's designed for liquid fuel distribution, and a public which is already accustomed to using it, and to very quick refueling. We also have roughly 200 years worth of refinements into internal combustion engines.

As yet, nothing can match the energy density of liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transportation as we currently implement it, so we don't have to worry about range, or rethink safety procedures for handling or for collisions. So biomass derived biofuels are a very appealing and attainable intermediate energy solution.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this point but aside from the energy needed to process and refine the fuel, this would be carbon neutral, right? All of the carbon in the fuel was taken in by the algae in the first place so when it is released it is in the same or lower amounts, though in different forms. Again, I am a bit ignorant on this subject so please correct me.

You're right. The algae would have grown using CO2 from the environment (air/water) and we would be turning that into a long-chain hydrocarbon. However, since this process mentions that it's only currently suitable as a "mixer" along with regular crude, the end result of what you would put in your car would not be carbon neutral, BUT it would be a little better in that area than what we're currently using.

I wonder how much energy/heat it takes to do this, and it seems that you could achieve both the heat and the pressure using a solar collection system -- so this is possibly a way to "store" solar energy that everyone is always saying we need to figure out.

That's a very good point; this isn't a perfect solution. It's one heck of a great first step, though. This kind of process tends to get refined by others and that, in the end, is where the real impact is. I'm sure if you look back at the old days of refining crude oil into gasoline, etc, it wasn't nearly as profitable or efficient as it is now or was even 50 years ago.

Another thing that springs to mind about this is that a mixed blend may help break the barriers of some ultra-conservatives who think the new stuff is inferior. That may be a long shot but one can hope.

I remember hearing in a science podcast that all the fertilizer runoff from various farms, massively increased to produce biofuel, was causing increased algae blooms that choke the oxygen levels and kill marine life. My immediate reaction was, why not use those algae blooms for biofuel then? A biologist friend commented that it's difficult getting the same strain of algae, which I guess is required for efficient energy production, but there was some exciting research coming down the pipe. Not this one in particular, but it's still a nice sign of progress in exploring different vectors of renewable energy.

While the best approaches to energy production do not add any carbon to the atmosphere we still have NO viable substitute for aviation fuel. A price competitive, carbon neutral source of Jet A would be a huge breakthrough in reducing a major source of transportation sourced carbon emissions. This could be a very useful technology.

there isn't a hope in hell of this coming to market then! the 'oil companies' give up the trillions of dollars a year they make, in favour of something that is far less harmful to the planet, making everyone more healthy and live longer? no chance in hell! and the governments wont allow it either. all they want is to line their own pockets, live till they're 120 in abject wealth, leaving everything to the relations for generations to come, while not having to pay out a dime in pension money to the poor fuckers they are making work til they are too old and sick to be able to retire anyway!

You've forgotten that 'oil companies' aren't just energy companies, and haven't been since we advanced past bakelite to the huge range of engineering plastics and resing we use practically everywhere. Big oil has nothing to worry about, petroleum wont go away even as energy shifts toward things which are cheaper and renewable. They're all over it.

If you can make biocrude that qualifies as "light" crude, then the economics works much better than would appear at first glance. It is expensive to upgrade a refinery to be able to utilize the heaviest grades of crude. Yet if you take a pretty heavy grade of crude, mix in some light biocrude, you now have a light enough crude mix that you can avoid a potentially huge upgrade cost in your refinery. I'm sure an analysis of all the cost trade-offs gets complicated fast, but you don't necessarily need biocrude to be in absolute cost parity to fossil crude in order to make economic sense.

there isn't a hope in hell of this coming to market then! the 'oil companies' give up the trillions of dollars a year they make, in favour of something that is far less harmful to the planet, making everyone more healthy and live longer? no chance in hell! and the governments wont allow it either. all they want is to line their own pockets, live till they're 120 in abject wealth, leaving everything to the relations for generations to come, while not having to pay out a dime in pension money to the poor fuckers they are making work til they are too old and sick to be able to retire anyway!

That is to say: who do you think has the infrastructure to handle large quantities of semi-usable liquid fuel that needs refining? Instead of hauling fuel from pumps in the middle of the ocean, they would instead haul them in from algae farms. It's not like these companies are just going to see algae-based fuels and go "whelp, that's it for dino-doo-doo, guess it's time to pack up"

Since it sounds like the system is highly heat-dependent, it might make sense to build a few plants in some of the vast tracts of otherwise unusable desert. Loss of heat at night might be countered with various forms of heat storage (as there will be no shortage of it during the day.)

Unlike electric solutions, which for example would require a colossal public investment in the US's aging electric power distribution system

Many studies have demonstrated no upgrades to the grid are required. The grid, in its current form, can charge a massive ecar buildout. There have been mentioned of this here on Ars if I'm not mistaken.

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Typical 240V/30A home chargers are pulling the same amount of power as your stove/oven, so peak load is simply not an issue. Practically everyone turns on their stove at about the same time of the day, and add their cloths driers and heating/cooling loads at the same time, and the grid handles it fine.

We also have roughly 200 years worth of refinements into internal combustion engines.

The four-cycle engine is from the 1870s. Electric motors predate ICE by about 100 years. Electric motors are much more widely used and developed. You probably own two or three ICE, and likely two dozen electrics.

Unlike electric solutions, which for example would require a colossal public investment in the US's aging electric power distribution system

Many studies have demonstrated no upgrades to the grid are required. The grid, in its current form, can charge a massive ecar buildout. There have been mentioned of this here on Ars if I'm not mistaken.

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Typical 240V/30A home chargers are pulling the same amount of power as your stove/oven, so peak load is simply not an issue. Practically everyone turns on their stove at about the same time of the day, and add their cloths driers and heating/cooling loads at the same time, and the grid handles it fine.

We also have roughly 200 years worth of refinements into internal combustion engines.

The four-cycle engine is from the 1870s. Electric motors predate ICE by about 100 years. Electric motors are much more widely used and developed. You probably own two or three ICE, and likely two dozen electrics.

So biomass derived biofuels are a very appealing and attainable intermediate energy solution.

Indeed, especially in a PEH. Denser fuel like diesel is even better.

The basic design of the four-stroke engine has been modified a lot since the 1870s. It could be argued that electric motors simply don't need such refinements, though, as they're just a coil wrapped around a magnet.

If you're not trying to be green, but just to get gasoline without needing an oil well, try this

- use coal for a carbon supply- use either natural gas or water for added hydrogen. There's a tradeoff where water is cheaper but natural gas adds energy vs. having to crack down water- use a nuclear reactor to provide energy to the system

tune everything so you get something usable out, aiming for octane (C8H18), give or take an atom.

People can argue that this is almost as bad of a carbon load as what we have now and coal mines aren't clean, and that's all true, but this is a process that would provide synthetic gasoline if the "natural :-/" stuff ran out, and it wouldn't break the bank.

I'm not really excited about extending the utility of internal combustion- IMO it will be on the way out by late century- but what is exciting about this kind of biotechnology is the other uses. Maybe algae could be engineered to mass-produce pharmaceuticals, or even feed-stock molecules for some future nanotechnology.

You ought to be! Unlike electric solutions, which for example would require a colossal public investment in the US's aging electric power distribution system, as well as a pretty huge private outlay for charging stations, we've already got a large network that's designed for liquid fuel distribution, and a public which is already accustomed to using it, and to very quick refueling. We also have roughly 200 years worth of refinements into internal combustion engines.

As yet, nothing can match the energy density of liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transportation as we currently implement it, so we don't have to worry about range, or rethink safety procedures for handling or for collisions. So biomass derived biofuels are a very appealing and attainable intermediate energy solution.

At the same time. Petrochemicals are VERY useful for a lot of things don't involve burning them. So, an inexpensive process for making long chain hydrocarbons that doesn't start with crude oil is still valuable - even in the absence of ICE's.

I'm curious, where does the hydrogen come from? On an industrial scale, would generating the hydrogen represent lost efficiency, or are there large scale sources of free (in terms of energy) hydrogen out there?

I'm sure they account for it, so this news is pretty exciting. If it really can be scaled up massively, it's nice to know that there are renewable solutions for liquid fuels production, even if it costs $7 a gallon. News like this makes it sound like we will always be able to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels, it just requires throwing enough money at the problem (see also uranium from seawater).

Typically, the hydrogen in a petrol refinery comes from some sort of reformer which ups the octane of the gasoline pool via isomerization and desaturation of aromatic rings.

I'm curious, where does the hydrogen come from? On an industrial scale, would generating the hydrogen represent lost efficiency, or are there large scale sources of free (in terms of energy) hydrogen out there?

Hydrogen can be easily produced from water using electricity and I've seen previous suggestions that we use that process to help compensate for the variability of some renewable resources like wind or solar. Since you can't control the production you can create in infrastructure to control the demand. Getting excess wind power? Crank up the Hydrogen production to create more demand. This obviously assume that they are getting the electricity for a very cheap price or even free in return for allowing their demand to be controls to match output. It didn't sound like this would work at a large scale just producing hydrogen because the supply would cause the price to crash but if the hydrogen was just the first step in making something else valuable then you can create your own demand for it.

This was the first step of using a different process to create hydro-carbons but would work here too. Just need to make sure that that there is enough excess cheap capacity to meet the hydrogen needs of the plant.

So, as long as we are willing to pay northward of $6.00/ gallon (before taxes, because fuel is around $2.90 per gallon presently, before it is taxed) we can replace up to 80% of crude oil. In 50 years or so, this may be viable.

Problem is, it's dirty. Emissions from hydrocarbon-based fuel adds greenhouse gas, pollutes and makes clean water dirty. This is a great experiment, but in 50 years, the result should be used for lubrication, not burning.

Thanks, so in any case producing the hydrogen requires additional energy input, or possibly consumption of fossil fuels. I guess the headline should really be "algae + hydrogen + energy go in, biocrude oil comes out". I am curious about the energy return on energy invested (not counting sunlight) of the process. It sounds like it is better than one, but I wonder if it is significantly better. Though even if you were putting in more energy than you get out, it could still be useful for energy storage.

How is this different than the thermal depolymerization plant that converted turkey offal into light crude? They ran for a while, but eventually went out of business, IIRC. But they were delivering product, so the cycle must have worked.